>>40696508It's a good definition, yes. The Great Work itself is often defined as the summum bonum (highest good). However, I would not concern myself with the definition of "good" and "evil" that much. They are relative terms and only make sense relatively to something. Good for what? Evil for what?
"When I came to men, then found I them resting on an old infatuation:
all of them thought they had long known what was good and bad for
men.
An old wearisome business seemed to them all discourse about virtue;
and he who wished to sleep well spoke of "good" and "bad" ere retiring
to rest.
This somnolence did I disturb when I taught that no one yet knows
what is good and bad: - unless it be the creating one!
It is he, however, who creates man's goal, and gives to the earth its
meaning and its future: he only effects it that aught is good or bad.
And I bade them upset their old academic chairs, and wherever that
old infatuation had sat; I bade them laugh at their great moralists, their
saints, their poets, and their saviours."
-Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Those are perhaps the wisest words ever spoken about good and evil. Your definition is close to the truth, but then I'll ask you: and what does limit the spiritual evolution of man? Truly, good and evil are tiresome and useless words. Do your best, and remember that your good and someone else's good don't look the same. Act according to your good and perceived moral code, but strive ever to do better, check and recheck it, value the bonds you have with people and the service you give to mankind, act always from love as much as you can. Don't concern yourself with specific definitions of what is good and what is evil. God doesn't know about any of those definitions.